Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ellen G. White"s Conceptual Understanding of The Sanctuary and Hermeneutics
Ellen G. White"s Conceptual Understanding of The Sanctuary and Hermeneutics
Ellen G. White"s Conceptual Understanding of The Sanctuary and Hermeneutics
The subject of hermeneutics has received much attention within Adventism in recent years. This is certainly not a new discussion, but as each new generation of believers takes ownership of the Seventh-day Adventist doctrines, message, and mission, old issues resurface and require new answers. I believe one way of finding answers to our current questions is to look at the way our pioneers studied Scriptures and found answers for themselves. In this paper, I wish to present how Ellen G. Whites literal or plain reading of Scripture influenced her understanding of the sanctuary doctrine. She understood the doctrine of the sanctuary to be the basis of the Seventh-day Adventist message. In a 1906 letter to G. C. Tenney, she commented: The correct understanding of the ministration [of Christ] in the heavenly sanctuary is the foundation of our faith (Letter 208, 1906). Ellen Whites conceptual understanding of the heavenly sanctuary and its ministries is a good example of the impact of hermeneutics upon ones belief system. Based primarily upon chapters in two of her most popular books, one in Patriarchs and Prophets and the other in The Great Controversy,1 this study will show how she conceived many parallels between the heavenly sanctuary and its ministration and the earthly tabernacle and its services as a result of her hermeneutical principles.
1 Ellen G. White, The Story of Patriarchs and Prophets (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1958), and The Great Controversy between Christ and Satan (Mountain View, CA: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1950). I will give in-text abbreviated references to these two books.
160
161
4 Ellen White understands that In some cases the blood of the victim was not taken into the holy place (PP 354). In such cases, as found in Leviticus 4, the priest ate part of the victim and/or placed blood on the altar of burnt offering. However, Both ceremonies alike symbolized the transfer of the sin from the penitent to the sanctuary (PP 354-355); (see also the Appendix Note 6 in PP 761). In actuality, of course, the blood of daily sacrifices was only rarely carried into the holy placefor the sins of a priest or the whole peoplebut the process serves as a useful synecdoche for atonement. The biblical text mentions only once that the placing of the hand on the head of the victim so it can make atonement was accompanied by confession (Lev 16:21), but perhaps we can generally assume that a person who brought and sacrificed an expensive animal was repentant and seeking cleansing from sin.
163
165
divine. It also seems clear from the contrast that the Lord or Jesus cannot represent both individuals. For further study on this subject, see Arnold V. Wallenkampf and W. Richard Lesher, eds., The Sanctuary and the Atonement: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Studies (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald, 1981), 120-125.
166